cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Wilder Rodrigues <WRodrig...@schubergphilis.com>
Subject Re: VR refactoring, concerns and a way out ?
Date Thu, 24 Sep 2015 20:27:34 GMT
Thinking about being disrespectful when one doesn’t read the emails, or does but filters
parts of the message, and keeps storming about unclear things.

Yes, time to move on. We have to get a cloud running.

Cheers,
Wilder

> On 24 Sep 2015, at 20:29, Raja Pullela <raja.pullela@citrix.com> wrote:
> 
> this is very disrespectful... Sorry to say that you don't understand the complexity and
impact of this..  Let's not discuss this over an email and agree to disagree with each other...
move on! 
> 
>> On Sep 24, 2015, at 10:20 PM, Wilder Rodrigues <WRodrigues@schubergphilis.com>
wrote:
>> 
>> Raja,
>> 
>> Do you actually know the amount of blockers we have and how many are VR related?
Because I have seen emails from Rajani around concerning the blockers and I don’t see many.
So, yes, I really do think your approach is non-sense.
>> 
>> I mentioned it before, about 1 week ago, but I think you just ignored the content
of the email. We have 7 blockers, from which 4 are VR related but probably only 2 are related
to the refactor of the router side (python code). You created 2 of the blockers. So, I think
would be better to focus on fixing them other than making a storm out of it.
>> 
>> You can see the list here: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Dashboard.jspa?selectPageId=12326765
>> 
>> The java part of the router refactor was released on 4.5, quite some time ago. So,
please have a look at git log before mentioned the refactor as a whole.
>> 
>> Another thing is: master is unstable - not because VR changes - and nobody could
tests the PRs that should fix the VR issues.  When we suggested to stabilise Master, people
kept pushing features through PRs thinking that it would help - even after we said only BLOCKER
issues would be merged.
>> 
>> So, please stop this storm around the VR because we are trying to work.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Wilder
>> 
>> 
>> On 24 Sep 2015, at 17:21, Raja Pullela <raja.pullela@citrix.com<mailto:raja.pullela@citrix.com>>
wrote:
>> 
>> @wilder, Not sure why you would think it as a nonsense approach? sure, you realize
amount of code churn and blockers we are dealing with when 4.6 is ready to go out.
>> 
>> Agreed, the refactoring happened several months ago and we could have taken a closer
look then-   the recent blockers filed have uncovered areas where in the implementation didn't
exist.  I will post the bug details around this.
>> 
>> Obviously, the refactoring changes missed multiple critical test scenarios and will
take substantial time to test/stabilize.
>> 
>> The BVTs are coming good for basic zone and Adv zone there are still a number of
failures and it will take us good time to get those fixed.
>> 
>> Besides the BVTs, regression tests are in a very bad shape.  Hope to get to these
starting next week.
>> 
>> Please see my latest bvt report, I will post in another 2 hrs, waiting for a new
run to complete.
>> 
>> On Sep 24, 2015, at 7:00 PM, sebgoa <runseb@gmail.com<mailto:runseb@gmail.com>>
wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Sep 24, 2015, at 3:17 PM, Remi Bergsma <RBergsma@schubergphilis.com<mailto:RBergsma@schubergphilis.com>>
wrote:
>> 
>> Are you serious? You consider to revert a PR that was merged over 6 months ago? And
expect it to become more stable?
>> 
>> I have not followed all the latest development, but if we are talking about the VR
refactoring, indeed it happened several months back. Reverting it now does not seem like a
good idea.
>> 
>> I am probably missed a beat here, but the latest BVT results sent by Raja showed
XS tests almost at 100%, there were only some issues with KVM.
>> 
>> The problem, in MHO, is not that we find bugs that we consider blockers. The problem
is we are unable to resolve them effectively because master is unstable. There currently isn’t
a single PR that solves it, hence there is no way to test PRs. This is because we have many
PRs open and they were all branched off of a master that doesn’t work. I simply can't test
proposed PRs.
>> 
>> This problem occurred about 3 weeks ago, because before that master worked and we
could solve issues and merge PRs. I’m not saying it was bug-free, but at least we could
work on stabilising it. Most likely, we accepted a “fix” that made things worse. Probably
even multiple of them.
>> 
>> Master seemed stable and PR where being merged towards 4.6 with success (it seemed),
so indeed if we have issues now of stability, we should identify what caused it
>> 
>> To get out of this, I think we need to combine a few PRs that make it stable. I’ll
have a look today with Wilder and Funs to see if what fixes we need to combine to make it
work again. O
>> nce we merge it and master actually works again, we can rebase any open PR with current
master and work from there.
>> 
>> Potentially, if you identify the commit or commits that brought the instability you
could revert to that point and play forward PRs that did not render master unstable.
>> 
>> Thanks for looking into it.
>> 
>> -seb
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Remi
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 24/09/15 14:00, "Ramanath Katru" <ramanath.katru@citrix.com<mailto:ramanath.katru@citrix.com>>
wrote:
>> 
>> My vote is for the approach no.1 - to backout completely. Most of VR functionalities
are broken and are in a mess to say the least. It definitely will take some time and effort
from several folks to get it to a stable state.
>> 
>> Ram Katru
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Raja Pullela [mailto:raja.pullela@citrix.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 2:06 PM
>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>
>> Subject: VR refactoring, concerns and a way out ?
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I understand a concern on the VR changes was raised earlier.  My apologies to restart
this thread again.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> However, my last conversation with Jayapal, who has fixed/have been fixing lot of
VR issues, about the VR issues and he is pretty concerned about the refactoring that has happened.
 I have had the same concern for sometime now  (VR issues have been on the list of issues
to be looked into for at least 4+ weeks) and wanted to see a good solution for this- with
VR being very fundamental to the system.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Couple of solutions/proposals –
>> 
>> 1)      Back out the VR changes – Pros: VR has been stable for some time and it
is working well.
>> 
>> 2)      Continue to fix/stability VR changes -   Concerns: is the unknowns, what
we will find out and how long this will take to stabilize the VR functionality.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Please chime in if you have any thoughts or concerns around this,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> best,
>> 
>> Raja
>> 
>> 


Mime
View raw message